(Editor - First - just acknowledging a curious very large spike in hits to this blog over the last 30 hours.  Was it something I said?)

Within the kaleidoscope we have here on the eve of a monumental election, the federal Department of Home Land Security (DHS) released a bulletin regarding another attempted terrorist attack on the United States by way (apparently) of some sort of package-bomb origin off-shore:

Current Threat Level

October 28, 2010

• The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.
• For all domestic and international flights, the U.S. threat level is High, or Orange. See the Transportation Security Administration for up-to-date information on items permitted and prohibited on airlines.

Very curiously, at least one package was supposedly destined for a synagogue in Chicago.  Was it a 'Sicilian message' to Rahm Emanuel perhaps?  Obviously, facts are hard to come by right now, but the choice of targets is weird.  You would think there are a large number of higher value targets out there.  But I digress.

As we rapidly approach decision day 2010, we are confronted with a reminder of the confounding security protocols developed and enforced by DHS via the Transporation Security Agency (TSA) at domestic (and demanded of many international) airports. There have been a number of articles lately regarding the TSA, and their stupid security checks.

• A commercial pilot became fed-up with the intrusive and invasive security practices of the TSA, and refused to submit to them .  He has subsequently been banned from flying aircraft.  But wait just one damn minute - pilots get checked for weapons?  When they subsequently strap on an aircraft (behind a now reinforced cabin door) and can drill the plane into the ground any time they feel like it?  How jackass stupid is that?

• Several articles have appeared talking about the roll-out of these electronic strip-search x-ray machines at New York and New Jersey major airports.  Something not widely noted beyond the linked article here - DHS is being sued by a group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Constitutional grounds that these machines absolutely positively outrageously violate Americans 4th Amendment rights.

• European Airlines are complaining loudly that DHS security measures are "useless and overly intrusive" , demanding that DHS take another look at their requirements (fat chance).

• And lastly, there was an article out today that pat-down searches, the generous alternate to the electronic strip search, are going to get more "intrusive" - which basically means if you want to fly, and don't want to be strip searched, then your alternative is to have your privates groped by a stranger who also happens to be a Federal employee.

When Republicans, with some number of Democrats going along for the ride, passed the so-called Patriot Act, I was appalled.  As the Bush Administration used that statute, as well as legal rationalizations surrounding what lawyers refer to as "unitary executive theory " (what the President can and can't do with the Executive Branch without Congressional approval/oversight) - Democrats started voicing opposition to some of the elements of the Patriot Act that went against what was then conventional wisdom surrounding our Constitutional liberties.  As time went on Democrats made a lot of 'hay' over the excesses associated with the Patriot Act's application by the Bush Administration, right up until the time when they won the House, the Senate, and the White House.  Suddenly, it was no longer en-vogue to complain about eroding civil liberties in the name of security.   The doctrine of suspending the 4th Amendment in the name of anti-terror security was embraced by most who came to power, including and especially Barack Obama.

Back in the 60's and 70's when hijacking aircraft was all the rage, metal detectors were installed at all the airports.  After a lot of legal hand-wringing, the courts more or less settled on what became known as "administrative search doctrine".  In 1971, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the doctrine meant the following:

"searches conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, rather than as part of a criminal investigation to secure evidence of a crime, may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment though not supported by a showing of probable cause directed to a particular place or person to be searched." 

Basically, that's a court hatched scheme to by-pass the intent of the 4th Amendment.  But in 1971, the issue was passive metal detectors, not getting your nuts groped by some federal worker, or being fed through a machine where all one's bodily short-comings are laid bare to a federal professional voyeur.

Electronic strip searches and penetrating pat-downs are an anathema to our way of life.  What's worse, they are for show, because we all know - save for the dumbest of the dumb - that young Muslim males are the problem here, and searching Grampa, or this WASP middle-aged blogger is absurdly absurd.  It's a bad joke, a really bad pathetic joke, and the joke is totally on us.  The level of intrusiveness here is beyond the pale, and it has to be challenged - in the courts, yes, but also we need to bring the wrath of an angry electorate to bear against legislators who would strip us of our rights with the lazy stroke of a pen. 

Shortly after this election cycle is over, I am going to give the winner of my congressional district hell over these searches.  I would like to see a national boycott day organized where all Americans refuse to fly in protest of an un-checked  DHS and TSA. 

From time to time, the electorate must rise from their slumber and remind our legislators who is really in charge (while we still are).